About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
drones to a green fleet, i expect similar policies to continue for my former colleague chuck hagel to be confirmed, hopefully as early as next week. for all these reasons i have long been a supporter of renewable fuels, and i encourage the further development of an industry that is important, both to our national security as well as to our farm economy. whether we're talking food or water or energy security, let me put it this way. in the future, more crops in the field can mean fewer soldiers in the field. at the same time, as important as our defense capabilities are, we also need to rebalance for the other free d's. the u.s. today spends more on defense than on diplomacy, democracy and developments all put together. meanwhile, in the past year, china has more than doubled its investment in developing new agricultural technologies. those are the kinds of farsighted policies that are enabling china to emerge as a world power, in which we, frankly, need to get back to. as we shift our focus and our resources towards smarter, more constructive forms of international interaction, it'
on television. today in a 58-40 cloture voted. they blocked chuck hagel being the sex -- secretary of defense. next the hour long debate on the nomination. they said they will not vote for cloture today, i think it's too bad. there's been more than enough time to read the additional speeches that have been coming in. the argument raced beyond that i know has do with the payment an equity fund that was received has been fully explained. as a highly reputable fund that senator hagel was an adviser to like many other reputable people. i think the continuation what amounts to filibuster is too bad when there's a secretary of defense who is leafing to go back to california. we need to have our new secretary of defense in place given the circumstances in this world. we have a budget crisis in this country, our scwesser is confronting us. that's sequester will have a damaging effect on the deference department, on the men and women in uniform. and on the programs, the equipment, the training that they need to be ready for any kind of contingency. so the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me is a
-level officers and enlisted that are so important to the leadership of our military and chuck hagel's leadership and commitment will be critical to that task. i have met with chuck hagel privately, i've asked him tough questions about iran and israel. i'm satisfied on those points that he will advise the president in according to with -- in accord with those policies but even more important i am struck by his passion, the intensity of his commitment to our men and women in uniform. his caring about them is indicated in so many ways. spontaneously and strongly in his testimony, as well as his private conversations. he will make sure that sexual assault in the military, the epidemic and scourge of rape and assault against men and women who serve and sacrifice for this country will be stopped, that there will be, in fact, zero tolerance not only in word but in deed. and his viewing, for example, of the documentary "invisible war," his understanding that this kind of misconduct is an outrage never to be even implicitly condoned and to be treated as a criminal offense, the most extreme kind of predat
nothing about the personal compensation chuck hagel received in 2008, 2009 or 2010. we do not know, for example, if he receives compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme for radical groups. given the two letters he received, it is a fair inference to assume that he and those handling his nomination assembled that information, assembled his compensation, and the only reasonable inference i think is when they a symbol that there was something in there that they did not want to make public. it may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups are anti-israel groups and accepted financial compensation. we don't know. it may be that he received extraordinary payments from defense contractors, which i would suggest as a matter of conflict of interest. this committee and the senate would be interested in. we don't know what it was because he simply said no. i will not tell you the compensatcompensat ion i personally have received. and i will point out on this question, i agree with senator harry reid. when it came to the nomination of john bold, and in a of members of this body ask
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4